Debunking "evil Disney" accusations

[Californian Elitist]

If someone could explain to me why it's terrible that Tiana was a frog for most of the movie, maybe I can understand why it's a big deal. To me it's just another movie where a character was turned into an animal. If it were a white girl who was turned into a frog or any other animal for most of the movie, no one would care. And nobody should care...either way.

I looked up Fantasia and yeah that was pretty bad but I'm not sure if that's something to really get upset about. People are always going to poke fun at each other (and that's with anything and everything people can pick out not just skin color). And yes, I know what's it like to be made fun of.

The reason it bothers some of us that Tiana was a dang frog for basically the entire movie is because she's the first and only African American Disney princess. Simple as that. We finally get a black princess, and she spends almost the entire movie as an amphibian. That's the problem with some of us.

The centaur scene in Fantasia scene mocks African Americans in a bad way. How can one not get upset, especially as an African American person? The black centaur had exaggerated, huge pink lips, nappy hair and was basically a slave. That scene went beyond mocking people. It was downright insulting.

 

[steamboat wil]

The monkey scene is no doubt not racist. Louis Prima and his band played and danced the same way as the monkeys did on the movie. I think it had more to do with monkeys being able to mimic Prima's band movements better than other animals in the movie. If Italians don't think it is racist, why should African-Americans? Louis Prima was brilliant though, "Angelina Angelina"!

I do kind of agree with the PaTF. African-Americans got cheated out of screen time for their first black princess because she was a frog most of the movie. I thought the lightning bug was equally offensive and seemed to make fun of folks with a long New Orleans/Cajun background.

 

[HihisIsKari..]

The reason it bothers some of us that Tiana was a dang frog for basically the entire movie is because she's the first and only African American Disney princess. Simple as that. We finally get a black princess, and she spends almost the entire movie as an amphibian. That's the problem some of us.

The centaur scene in Fantasia scene mocks African Americans in a bad way. How can one not get upset, especially as an African American person? The black centaur had exaggerated, huge pink lips, nappy hair and was basically a slave. That scene went beyond mocking people. It was downright insulting.

But I still don't understand why that's bad because that doesn't take away from the fact that she's black. I don't think someone decided "Oh hey our first black princess! We should definitely make her a frog for the majority of the movie to some people off!" Just because she was a frog doesn't mean it took away from her character as a human.

I'm not denying that it's bad. It's hard for me to understand more because I try not to let those types of things get to me because they're just plain dumb. People have been doing that kind of thing forever and it won't ever end, and it's important to not let these things get to us so much. So if I were put in the same situation where my race were being made fun of so horribly I would at least try to let it go because it's not something that defines me as a person. Just like I'm sure that cartoon doesn't define you as a person. And that's not at all how I see any black person and I'm sure that's not how others see black people.

 

[FettFan]

The reason it bothers some of us that Tiana was a dang frog for basically the entire movie is because she's the first and only African American Disney princess. Simple as that. We finally get a black princess, and she spends almost the entire movie as an amphibian. That's the problem some of us.

That was the source material, though. The Frog Princess by E.D. Baker.

In fact, the original title was supposed to be "The Frog Princess", but Disney changed it as they did not want to offend French people. Not kidding.

There were also protests about Ray the Cajun firefly being a negative stereotype.
(which, aside from the missing teeth, nothing about Ray was really that bad. Ooh he had an accent. Big deal!)

And hell, my ancestors ARE Cajun.

I thought the lightning bug was equally offensive and seemed to make fun of folks with a long New Orleans/Cajun background.

Speaking as someone of the Cajun background....no he really wasn't.

And New Orleans is not Cajun. the Cajun areas of this state are Acadiana, west and south of both New Orleans and Baton Rouge.

EDIT -- And CODOFIL has their own issues to worry about. They want to keep French in Louisiana....but they teach PARISIAN French, not Acadian French.

 

[Californian Elitist]

But I still don't understand why that's bad because that doesn't take away from the fact that she's black. I don't think someone decided "Oh hey our first black princess! We should definitely make her a frog for the majority of the movie to some people off!" Just because she was a frog doesn't mean it took away from her character as a human.

I'm not denying that it's bad. It's hard for me to understand more because I try not to let those types of things get to me because they're just plain dumb. People have been doing that kind of thing forever and it won't ever end, and it's important to not let these things get to us so much. So if I were put in the same situation where my race were being made fun of so horribly I would at least try to let it go because it's not something that defines me as a person. Just like I'm sure that cartoon doesn't define you as a person. And that's not at all how I see any black person and I'm sure that's not how others see black people.

Are you African American? If you're not, maybe it's harder for you to understand. As an African American female, I was stoked to learn Disney had finally decided to create a black princess. Once I found it she was going to be a frog, I must admit, it killed some of the excitement for me. Why couldn't they have adapted a different story? One that didn't involve the main character being an animal? That's how I feel.

It doesn't bother me to the point where I won't sit and watch the movie. I love the film but I'm just saying it would have been nice to see Tiana human for the movie.

 

[Californian Elitist]

That was the source material, though. The Frog Princess by E.D. Baker.

I know the story of the Frog Princess. But why did the African American princess have to be the one chosen for the adaptation? Why couldn't Rapunzel be the African American princess?

 

[HihisIsKari..]

Are you African American? If you're not, maybe it's harder for you to understand. As an African American female, I was stoked to learn Disney had finally decided to create a black princess. Once I found it she was going to be a frog, I must admit, it killed some of the excitement for me. Why couldn't they have adapted a different story? One that didn't involve the main character being an animal? That's how I feel.

It doesn't bother me to the point where I won't sit and watch the movie. I love the film but I'm just saying it would have been nice to see Tiana human for the movie.

No, I'm pretty white. I think the reason I have a hard time understanding your feeling is just because I really don't understand why skin color matters at all in any situation. Maybe they could have changed the story but I don't think they thought that people would be bothered by the fact that she got turned into a frog.

I can definitely see your point about losing some excitement over that kinda thing though.

 

[Californian Elitist]

No, I'm pretty white. I think the reason I have a hard time understanding your feeling is just because I really don't understand why skin color matters at all in any situation. Maybe they could have changed the story but I don't think they thought that people would be bothered by the fact that she got turned into a frog.

I can definitely see your point about losing some excitement over that kinda thing though.

Yeah, I don't expect for you to understand. We're coming from two different perspectives. Still fun to discuss, though.

 

[FettFan]

I know the story of the Frog Princess. But why did the African American princess have to be the one chosen for the adaptation? Why couldn't Rapunzel be the African American princess?

Because in the Grimm story, Rapunzel is directly stated as having blonde hair.

Unlike The Frog Prince, where the female lead is never described in great detail, only as being selfish and spoiled. Which would later be retconned into Naveen.


Sure PatF had its problems (why they didn't make Naveen an outright black guy is still a complete mystery to me...and the purported Louis backstory which was said to mirror Robert Johnson selling his soul to the devil in exchange for musical talent...only with human Louis making a deal with Facilier)....but the fact that Tiana was accidentally changed into a frog by Naveen is not one of them. She remains a strong, decent character throughout the entire movie.

EDIT -- In fact, this is the only time I have ever known a complaint because Tiana was changed into a frog.

 

[HihisIsKari..]

Yeah, I don't expect for you to understand. We're coming from two different perspectives. Still fun to discuss, though.

I know. And I don't expect many people to understand what my point is. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong...just looking for some kind of understanding of the whole color concept. Of course it's fun to discuss, different perspectives is what makes the world go round

 

[Clever Name]

 

[steamboat wil]

@FettFan. Sorry I don't know much about the history of that area. I just thought the movie took place in New Orleans and Ray the firefly was obviously Cajun. Sorry if I offended.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Because in the Grimm story, Rapunzel is directly stated as having blonde hair.

Unlike The Frog Prince, where the female lead is never described in great detail, only as being selfish and spoiled. Which would later be retconned into Naveen.


Sure PatF had its problems (why they didn't make Naveen an outright black guy is still a complete mystery to me...and the purported Louis backstory which was said to mirror Robert Johnson selling his soul to the devil in exchange for musical talent...only with human Louis making a deal with Facilier)....but the fact that Tiana was accidentally changed into a frog by Naveen is not one of them. She remains a strong, decent character throughout the entire movie.

EDIT -- In fact, this is the only time I have ever known a complaint because Tiana was changed into a frog.

So what if the character had blonde hair? Stories and characters change all the time. Mary Poppins in the novel is a mean shrew, but she is a kindhearted and sweet woman in the film. That's a weak excuse. If anything, a decent and original story could have been written.

I didn't say her turning into a frog took away a part of her character. I just said it would have been nice to see her human for the movie, that's it. Like I told another poster, I don't expect for you to understand where I'm coming from.

 

[FettFan]

@FettFan. Sorry I don't know much about the history of that area. I just thought the movie took place in New Orleans and Ray the firefly was obviously Cajun. Sorry if I offended.

LOL. Not offended at all

Just our history...after the Colonial Wars, when England took control of Canada, they expelled all of the French Acadians from what is now Nova Scotia. Some went back to France, some settled in New York (hence we have Shia LaBeouf), others made it down to Charleston and Mobile....but a good portion of us landed in New Orleans.
The problem was New Orleans at the time was going through its own change....the French had handed it off to the Spanish to keep the English from getting it too.

So the Spanish government allowed the exiles to move into the western part of the area, where they would be considered Spanish subjects, but allowed to keep their French customs as long as they kept Catholicism as their religion.

 

[steamboat wil]

LOL. Not offended at all

Just our history...after the Colonial Wars, when England took control of Canada, they expelled all of the French Acadians from what is now Nova Scotia. Some went back to France, some settled in New York (hence we have Shia LaBeouf), others made it down to Charleston and Mobile....but a good portion of us landed in New Orleans.
The problem was New Orleans at the time was going through its own change....the French had handed it off to the Spanish to keep the English from getting it too.

So the Spanish government allowed the exiles to move into the western part of the area, where they would be considered Spanish subjects, but allowed to keep their French customs as long as they kept Catholicism as their religion.

 

[steamboat wil]

Very cool stuff. Pretty pathetic I'm 32 and know none of this. I have been to N.O.though and absolutely loved the St. Louis Cathedral. But anyway, back on topic...

 

[Clever Name]

Walt Disney was a racist. There is no question about that fact. The reason is that the entire nation was racist during Walt's life. Jim Crow laws were on the books in the southern U.S. and de facto segregation took place in the north and the western U.S. Public schools, transportation, restrooms, restaurants, movie theaters and most public places were totally segregated. The U.S. military was segregated. Work places were segregated. Black people did not live in white areas. They could only be in a white area if they were hired help.

Remember that the U.S. Civil Rights Act did not have the force of law until 1964 and the Voting Rights Act did not become law until 1965. Walt died in 1966.

Also, Disneyland was never segregated. There was no need because very few black people lived in Orange County in 1955. Disneyland did not hire black people for front line jobs meeting the public. The CM's were young, white and clean cut.

Black people were hired at Disneyland in such jobs as maids and janitors. And that's the way is was!

 

[Cosmic Commando]

The reason it bothers some of us that Tiana was a dang frog for basically the entire movie is because she's the first and only African American Disney princess. Simple as that. We finally get a black princess, and she spends almost the entire movie as an amphibian. That's the problem some of us.

That always bothered my wife, too!

If there's any consolation, Disney doesn't seem to be emphasizing the frog part of the story in the way they use the character now. It might have stung seeing her as a frog for so much of the movie, but the movie could end up being only a small part of what "Tiana" is in 20 or 30 years. Like what they have done with Cars, Toy Story, and Tangled somewhat: continue the story in the theme parks or in animated shorts. Supposedly, more people have seen the Cars shorts than have seen either full-length movie. If they keep Tiana in the parks, especially if she gets a permanent show, restaurant or ride, people will remember her more for that than the movie itself. The movie will be a fun little adventure she went on, but Tiana will live in the parks as a human and be remembered as a human. Contrast that to the Beast, who went on this incredible journey of humility and self-discovery and is stuck forever meeting in the parks as his self-centered, violent, beastly old self.

 

[unkadug]

Walt Disney was a racist. There is no question about that fact. The reason is that the entire nation was racist during Walt's life. Jim Crow laws were on the books in the southern U.S. and de facto segregation took place in the north and the western U.S. Public schools, transportation, restrooms, restaurants, movie theaters and most public places were totally segregated. The U.S. military was segregated. Work places were segregated. Black people did not live in white areas. They could only be in a white area if they were hired help.

Remember that the U.S. Civil Rights Act did not have the force of law until 1964 and the Voting Rights Act did not become law until 1965. Walt died in 1966.

Also, Disneyland was never segregated. There was no need because very few black people lived in Orange County in 1955. Disneyland did not hire black people for front line jobs meeting the public. The CM's were young, white and clean cut.

Black people were hired at Disneyland in such jobs as maids and janitors. And that's the way is was!

In order to be a racist, don't they have to conscientiously make a decision to be exclusionary? If it was the status quo, then they really cannot be called a racist because they have made no conscious decision.

 

[KentB3]

Walt Disney was a racist. There is no question about that fact. The reason is that the entire nation was racist during Walt's life. Jim Crow laws were on the books in the southern U.S. and de facto segregation took place in the north and the western U.S. Public schools, transportation, restrooms, restaurants, movie theaters and most public places were totally segregated. The U.S. military was segregated. Work places were segregated. Black people did not live in white areas. They could only be in a white area if they were hired help.

Remember that the U.S. Civil Rights Act did not have the force of law until 1964 and the Voting Rights Act did not become law until 1965. Walt died in 1966.

Also, Disneyland was never segregated. There was no need because very few black people lived in Orange County in 1955. Disneyland did not hire black people for front line jobs meeting the public. The CM's were young, white and clean cut.

Black people were hired at Disneyland in such jobs as maids and janitors. And that's the way is was!

I hope this answers everyone's question!: